My kid isn't getting in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is a joke or not. From accepted ivy thread:

3.4 GPA
29 ACT
1 AP Class
No EC
Legacy URM

URM it maybe true

+1

Maybe but it’s most likely a disgruntled mom of a high stats kid.

Literally nobody has no ECs

Doubtful it’s URM. Thinking disgruntled parent as well who thinks a URM is taking their child’s place. We’re URM with high GPA, high ACT several EC including national awards and sports and we’re also being shut out of top schools. It’s not enough to be URM unless it includes sports.

SAT 1520
GPA 4.8
Elected leadership in the school
Great research project
Captain of her sport team
Great recommendations
URM &
Rejected from Tulane

I'm so sorry, PP. I hope she gets good news in RD. She sounds fantastic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is a joke or not. From accepted ivy thread:

3.4 GPA
29 ACT
1 AP Class
No EC
Legacy URM

URM it maybe true

+1

Maybe but it’s most likely a disgruntled mom of a high stats kid.

Literally nobody has no ECs

Doubtful it’s URM. Thinking disgruntled parent as well who thinks a URM is taking their child’s place. We’re URM with high GPA, high ACT several EC including national awards and sports and we’re also being shut out of top schools. It’s not enough to be URM unless it includes sports.

SAT 1520
GPA 4.8
Elected leadership in the school
Great research project
Captain of her sport team
Great recommendations
URM &
Rejected from Tulane

I'm so sorry, PP. I hope she gets good news in RD. She sounds fantastic!

It’s probably tulane’s yield protection. That’s a good sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

So are SATs (subjective).

Signed,
Former SAT prep teacher

[Anonymous]

Why does your kid need college at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's been rejected from an ED, deferred from an EA that was considered a safety, rejected from MD Honors, rejected by UVA, did not receive a transcript request last month from the UC's (evidentially a telltale sign you have a rejection coming April 1), received no merit aid from a safety that in the past routinely gave kids like him 10-15K a year, received no scholarship application invitation from another school that in the past routinely gave kids like him big scholarships...I could go on. When you are not full pay there are ways you can tell if a yes is coming from a lot of the schools. Of course there are others, and there's a decent chance he gets into one or two of them, but the trend does not make that feel likely.

Not saying this to kick you when you are down but to educate other parents. The UCs and UVA are VERY difficult admits for out of state students. You can’t look at overall admissions stats and base your applications on these. Add to that the UCs don’t even consider test scores, that 1500 was worth nothing. All they looked at was your child’s 10th and 11th grade grades in terms of stats, and those were lacking in math and science. This outcome was entirely predictable — your kid basically applied to all reaches and the wrong kind of reaches (competitive state schools that cap out of state admits to low numbers).

This is why you can’t just focus on T20s national universities on US News because those are chock full of UCs and Ivies/Stanford type schools that get overwhelmed with applicants. Sure, apply to some of the schools, but cast a broader net and don’t make those non reach applications an afterthought.

UCs are just as difficult for in-state students. You can argue that the pool of in-state is less competitive than OOS because large number of in-state students that apply but the days when 40% to 50% of applicants get into UCB or UCLA and 90%+ get into UCSB are long gone.

When my DH was in high school in San Diego in 1991, he and his classmates applied to UCSD as a "safety school."

[Anonymous]

Grade inflation is rampant and the way to distinguish yourself is by submitting 4s and 5s on AP test. If you’re in public school and getting straight A’s, submitting the corresponding AP test score will show you’re an A student, otherwise you’re group in with a bunch of other 4.0-4.5 students who are benefitting from rampant grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

So are SATs (subjective).

Signed,
Former SAT prep teacher

No more than your hight or weight, signed former nutrition expert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's been rejected from an ED, deferred from an EA that was considered a safety, rejected from MD Honors, rejected by UVA, did not receive a transcript request last month from the UC's (evidentially a telltale sign you have a rejection coming April 1), received no merit aid from a safety that in the past routinely gave kids like him 10-15K a year, received no scholarship application invitation from another school that in the past routinely gave kids like him big scholarships...I could go on. When you are not full pay there are ways you can tell if a yes is coming from a lot of the schools. Of course there are others, and there's a decent chance he gets into one or two of them, but the trend does not make that feel likely.

Not saying this to kick you when you are down but to educate other parents. The UCs and UVA are VERY difficult admits for out of state students. You can’t look at overall admissions stats and base your applications on these. Add to that the UCs don’t even consider test scores, that 1500 was worth nothing. All they looked at was your child’s 10th and 11th grade grades in terms of stats, and those were lacking in math and science. This outcome was entirely predictable — your kid basically applied to all reaches and the wrong kind of reaches (competitive state schools that cap out of state admits to low numbers).

This is why you can’t just focus on T20s national universities on US News because those are chock full of UCs and Ivies/Stanford type schools that get overwhelmed with applicants. Sure, apply to some of the schools, but cast a broader net and don’t make those non reach applications an afterthought.

Isn’t it still a safety school for kids from DMV?

UCs are just as difficult for in-state students. You can argue that the pool of in-state is less competitive than OOS because large number of in-state students that apply but the days when 40% to 50% of applicants get into UCB or UCLA and 90%+ get into UCSB are long gone.

When my DH was in high school in San Diego in 1991, he and his classmates applied to UCSD as a "safety school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I say no choices I mean- his only choice is CP. It will certainly get the job done. But he is left feeling like a failure and a loser going to the only school he got into instead of someone who was wanted by multiple schools and got to pick his best fit (which would probably still be CP). It would make his 4 years in CP much better knowing it was a choice to be there.

This is weird and you and your son need therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grade inflation is rampant and the way to distinguish yourself is by submitting 4s and 5s on AP test. If you’re in public school and getting straight A’s, submitting the corresponding AP test score will show you’re an A student, otherwise you’re group in with a bunch of other 4.0-4.5 students who are benefitting from rampant grade inflation.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry OP! But why such hate for UMD? Lots of kids got rejected by UmD this year. I get you have a high stats kid and hoped to get into a selective school. But unfortunately, high stats are not enough. 3 years ago my kid 1580 SAt, 800 on physics, math2, history, 15 APs and 2 beyond AP classes, software entrepreneur, rejected by MIT, Stanford, CMU, Cornell, Penn and Princeton. Only got acceptance from his safety schools UMD, Michigan and Georgia Tech. All honors. My nephew had a similar story, high stats but rejected everywhere. He was beyond depressed when he realized other lower stats kids getting into these schools. That was it for me. For me DC2, we didn’t apply to any school with less than 30% acceptance rate and it has been good so far!
Hang in there. It will be fine. UMD is a good school. Goal is to get an education… it will be met

This is almost the same as my friend's son, SAT 1600, 15 APs all 5, Presidential service award, sports team captain, cello first chair, rejected from dream schools Stanford, MIT, CMU and other top schools, only got accepted from his safety UVA. It took more than a year for the parents and kid to recover from the disappointment.

We have two of those in this household with similar results. Kids with perfect stats/EC getting rejected is nothing new. It happens all.the.time.

Kids work so hard and hope to get into top schools because they were told high stats are not enough for those schools. They did everything they could, school work, ECs, sports, volunteer, etc., but ended up with the same state schools as the neighbor's kids who had good grades but not much ECs and relatively easier high school lives.

Work smarter, not harder. Lesson learned. Don't make the same mistake in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

Colleges include recommendations now and you could argue recommendations are subjective so why do they include them? Some include interviews and you could also argue those are subjective. If the Varsity Blues scandal taught us nothing else, it’s that people can find ways to cheat on the “objective” tests as well. If you only used what you say are “objective” measurements GPA and test score, you would have more GPA/test scores in the same range than HYPSM could possibly accept and then what do they use? If using weighted GPA you would also have to quantify what was available at the school. You would have to compare a 4.7 GPA and a school where kids take all honors and APs from freshman year to someone that has a 4.5 and is the valedictorian at a school that either offered limited APs or limited how many students could take. But by your “objective” standard 4.7 at school where that puts the student in the top 15% is greater than 4.5 where the student is the valedictorian. Both students can do the work and colleges want to be able to pick who they want that they feel will handle the work and contribute to the community. Just because you want to go after minorities and try to state your opinions as facts doesn’t make it true.

I don’t read that the PP was “going after minorities”. And let’s be honest - the Covid high schools years were a joke if your kid was in a public high school in the DMV. They were not functioning and basically threw grade inflation up to new heights. So that high gpa is no indication of anything other than laziness on the part of the public school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

So are SATs (subjective).

Signed,
Former SAT prep teacher

No more than your hight or weight, signed former nutrition expert

DP: Very much more subjective than your height or weight. Those are direct measurements. SAT purports to measure something akin to knowledge/critical thinking/academic aptitude and there is mixed evidence on its ability to do so successfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am constantly amazed by all of the high stats on this board, which might support the privileged, prepped and supported argument. How are all of these kids scoring so high? In my day, at a competitive, privileged school, anything over 1400 seemed excellent, but here it’s almost scoffed at? Has the test changed that much? How do all of your kids have nearly perfect scores? Clearly I’m only starting the process with my own DC but they are already talking about not submitting because they won’t break 1400 and otherwise have all As. It just seems really broken to me. High school me would be getting rejected by every single school I applied to years ago. It really is nuts. With that said, it’s good to know there are many great schools out there, many paths to achieve the same goal/outcome. The kids are going to be alright.

I think I know why. It’s the accelerated classes and smart cohort in this area. The kids push each other to be smarter. DD goes to school in the South. Students that she knows from that unnamed state struggle more than she does in math and science. They are smart kids and DD does not love math and science. She just had to push herself more and has a better foundation, that’s all.

The College Board changed the distribution of scores. A 2100 on the old SAT should be a 1400 on the new one, right? Wrong. It’s a 1470 now. If you shift a normal distribution, the greatest percentage changes in any outcome in the new distribution are in the tails. There are just way more kids running around with high scores than there were 10 years ago, because they changed the test!

Ahaha, no. It's grade inflation. Teachers pressured by parents and administrators to reward students for poor effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

So are SATs (subjective).

Signed,
Former SAT prep teacher

No more than your hight or weight, signed former nutrition expert

DP: Very much more subjective than your height or weight. Those are direct measurements. SAT purports to measure something akin to knowledge/critical thinking/academic aptitude and there is mixed evidence on its ability to do so successfully.

Subjective means different people would put a different number on it. Creative? I give the kid a 5 and you give them a 2. SAT score? You answer x questions you get Y score no matter who grades it. We can argue if it is fair or if it is relevant but we know how to calculate the score